Ecological Indicators 18 (2012) 693–704

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Ecological Indicators
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolind

Relationship of land surface and air temperatures and its implications for
quantifying urban heat island indicators—An application for the city of Leipzig
(Germany)
Nina Schwarz a,∗ , Uwe Schlink b , Ulrich Franck b , Katrin Großmann c
a
UFZ - Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Department Computational Landscape Ecology, Permoserstrasse 15, 04318 Leipzig, Germany
b
UFZ - Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Core Facility “STUDIES”, Permoserstrasse 15, 04318 Leipzig, Germany
c
UFZ - Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Department Urban and Environmental Sociology, Permoserstrasse 15, 04318 Leipzig, Germany

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Urban heat islands (UHIs) describe the phenomenon of altered temperatures that occur in urban areas
Received 27 September 2011 when compared to their rural surroundings. UHIs influence human well-being, human health and the city
Received in revised form 2 January 2012 as an ecological niche. UHIs can be quantified with meteorological ground measurements of air temper-
Accepted 4 January 2012
atures or with remotely sensed land surface temperatures (surface urban heat island). Both approaches
have advantages and disadvantages and are rarely combined. Further, within these approaches, different
Keywords:
indicators for quantifying the UHIs are used. In this methodological study, we (1) combined data on land
Urban heat island
surface and air temperatures, (2) enriched the debate by suggesting the application of indicators for the
Indicator comparison
Remote sensing
two distinct data sets and (3) systematically quantified indicators of all approaches for the city of Leipzig,
Ground temperature Germany. A relationship between the land surface and air temperatures was established. However, the
Meteorological study results for the single indicators showed that the absolute values of the detected UHI in Leipzig depend
Data integration on the selected indicator and the data set used. The main conclusion for future studies on UHIs is to use
several UHI indicators in parallel to acknowledge the uncertainty of measuring the UHI using a single
indicator and either ground measurements or remote sensing.
© 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The term urban heat island (UHI) describes the phenomenon
of altered temperatures in urban areas compared to their rural
surroundings (Oke, 1982). UHIs are defined as the temperature
difference in urban and rural areas with diverse indicators for
quantifying the difference. Temperature differences result from
the influence of the thermal emissivity properties of urban sur-
faces and the three-dimensional configuration and heat capacity of
erected structures onto temperature patterns in an urban region.
Most of the world’s cities thus show higher temperatures in the
urban core than in the surrounding rural areas. One exception is
arid or semi-arid regions, in which the city cores may be cooler
due to factors such as irrigated gardens. UHIs directly (Harlan et al.,
2006; Lafortezza et al., 2009) and indirectly (Stafoggia et al., 2008)
affect the thermal comfort and health of the cities’ inhabitants. Fur-
thermore, altered temperature patterns also influence the urban
ecology by providing an altered species habitat (Knapp et al., 2008),
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +49 341 235 1970; fax: +49 341 235 1939.
E-mail addresses: nina.schwarz@ufz.de (N. Schwarz), uwe.schlink@ufz.de
(U. Schlink), ulrich.franck@ufz.de (U. Franck), katrin.grossmann@ufz.de
(K. Großmann).
and they influence vegetation dynamics in the city, e.g., earlier
bud-bursts (Luo et al., 2007; Roetzer et al., 2000; Shustack et al.,
2009). Increasing mean temperatures that occur due to climate
change add further weight to the importance of the UHI.
To quantify UHIs and understand the different approaches that
are used in indicator development, it is essential to distinguish
between UHIs that are quantified (a) from air temperatures and (b)
from land surface temperatures (LSTs). (a) Air temperature mea-
surements of UHIs refer to the so-called canopy layer, which is the
lowest part of the atmosphere from the ground up to the tree or
building height (Arnfield, 2003; Stewart, 2011). In the canopy layer,
spatially diverse air temperatures are present in urban and rural
areas. The next layer, which is the boundary layer, is also affected by
the urban surface but is not usually measured with meteorological
data of ground measurements (Oke, 1982). (b) Surface temperature
data for UHI quantifications originate from airborne or satellite-
borne sensors (Voogt and Oke, 2003). These sensors measure the
temperature of the land surface as seen from above, and this tem-
perature is related to the air temperature in the same location.
Voogt and Oke (2003) therefore proposed the term surface urban
heat island (SUHI) for a UHI that is measured with LST.
Different indicators quantify UHI and SUHI. For instance, air
temperatures are used to calculate temperature differences of
urban and rural weather stations or temperature traverses through

1470-160X/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.01.001
694 N. Schwarz et al. / Ecological Indicators 18 (2012) 693–704

Table 1
Typology of the UHI indicators for LSTs and air temperatures, UHI-driven and land-cover-driven.

Approach Indicator SUHI UHI

Q: quantification with LST; [unit] Q: quantification with AIRT; [unit]
S: source S: source
CS: adaption to case study CS: adaption to case study

Magnitude Q: (maximum LST of all pixels) – (mean LST of all Q: (maximum AIRT of all measurements) – (mean AIRT
pixels); [K] of all measurements); [K]
UHI-driven
S: Rajasekar and Weng (2009) S: new suggestion
CS: – CS: measurements from all weather stations
Range Q: LST [maximum LST of all pixels] – LST [minimum Q: AIRT [maximum AIRT of all measurements] – AIRT
LST of all pixels]; [K] [minimum AIRT of all measurements]; [K]
S: new suggestion S: Garcia-Cueto et al. (2007) and Runnalls and Oke
CS: – (2000)
CS: measurements used (1) from all weather stations,
(2) from mobile route
Gradient Q: unstandardised linear regression coefficient for all Q: unstandardised linear regression coefficient for
LST ← distance from city centre; [K/km] mobile AIRT ← distance from city centre; [K/km]
S: new suggestion S: new suggestion
CS: city centre = central station CS: city centre = central station
Hot island area Q: total area with [LST > (mean LST + 1 standard Not applicable
deviation)]; [km2 ]
S: Zhang and Wang (2008)
CS: –
Urban-rural (density) Q: LST [pixel with high density of sealed surface] – LST Q: AIRT [weather station in high density area] – AIRT
[pixel with low density of sealed surface]; [K] [weather station in low density area]; [K]
Land-cover-driven S: Gallo et al. (1993) S: Gallo et al. (1993) and Kukla et al. (1986)
CS: LST [pixel on station no. 1] – LST [pixel on station CS: AIRT [station no. 1] – AIRT [station no. 15]
no. 15]
Urban-rural (distance) Q: LST [pixel at the city centre] – LST [pixel at the Q: AIRT [weather station at the city centre] – AIRT
periphery]; [K] [weather station at the periphery]
S: Tomlinson et al. (2010) S: new suggestion
CS: LST [pixel on station no. 8] – LST [pixel on station CS: AIRT [station no. 8] – AIRT [station no. 14]
no. 14]
Urban-agriculture Q: mean LST [all urban covers] – mean LST Q: AIRT [weather station in urban area] – AIRT
[agriculture]; [K] [weather station in agricultural area]
S: Jin et al. (2005) S: new suggestion
CS: urban classes: urban atlas codes 11100–11240. CS: AIRT [station no. 1] – AIRT [station no. 14]
Agricultural class: urban atlas code 20000
Urban-water Q: mean LST [all urban classes] – mean LST [water]; [K] Not applicable
S: Chen et al. (2006)
CS: urban classes: urban atlas codes 11100–11240.
Water class: urban atlas code 50000
Micro-urban heat island Q: percentage of area without water surfaces with Not applicable
[LST > maximum LST of forest classes]; [%]
S: Aniello et al. (1995)
CS: forest class: urban atlas code 30000. Water class:
urban atlas code 50000

AIRT, air temperature; LST, land surface temperature. Not applicable: indicator cannot be transferred from AIRT to LST or vice versa. CS: - no adaptation to the case study
was necessary to quantify the indicator.

a city (Stewart, 2011). LSTs are used to calculate diverse SUHI
indicators, such as temperature differences for urban and agricul-
tural pixels or indicators that attempt to capture the spatial pattern
of temperatures (Schwarz et al., 2011). Both approaches have spe-
cific advantages. Air temperatures are a direct UHI measure, but
they are usually only available for single measurement stations or
traverses through a city. Conversely, SUHI can account for the tem-
perature distribution within a large area, but it is only an indirect
estimate of the UHI. Therefore, the combination of both approaches
provides added value for the description of UHIs.
A variety of studies have combined LST and air temperature data
(e.g., Garcia-Cueto et al., 2007; Hartz et al., 2006; Lindberg, 2007;
Voogt and Oke, 2003). However, specific indicators are solely cal-
culated with either air temperatures or LSTs. The only exception
seems to be the study by Gallo et al. (1993), who compared the
UHI/SUHI urban-rural temperature difference. No study was found
that compared both different indicators for UHI/SUHI with air and
LST in parallel. Our study aims at filling this gap by comparing indi-
cators for UHI/SUHI with a combination of air temperature and LST
data. This methodological study shall provide insights into the com-
parableness of indicators and data sets that are frequently used for
UHI/SUHI descriptions. Consequently, the present study (1) tested
the applicability of UHI/SUHI indicators for air temperatures and
LSTs and (2) compared UHI/SUHI indicators that stem from these
approaches. Thus, we hypothesize that
• Air temperatures and LSTs are related (hypothesis 1).
• Indicators to quantify the UHI/SUHI deliver comparable results
(hypothesis 2).
In this study, these indicators are differentiated regarding the
data that were used (which led to UHI and SUHI indicators, respec-
tively). Furthermore, indicators are distinguished regarding the
differentiation of what is considered “urban” and “rural” (Stewart
and Oke, 2009). We distinguish between the UHI-driven approach
and the land-cover-driven approach (Table 1). The UHI-driven
approach uses temperature patterns to distinguish urban and rural
areas (Lowry, 1977); the rural areas are those areas that are not
influenced by the UHI and therefore show lower temperatures,
while the urban areas show higher temperatures because of the
UHI. The land-cover-driven approach a priori defines urban and
rural areas by means of land cover data that differentiate between
urban (primarily built-up surfaces and their surroundings) and
rural (primarily natural or agricultural) areas and determines the
 N. Schwarz et al. / Ecological Indicators 18 (2012) 693–704
temperature differences in the second step. For both approaches,
UHI and SUHI indicators are available.
A UHI-driven indicator that is based on air temperatures is the
range (equal to the difference between the maximum and the min-
imum) of temperatures that are compiled in mobile measurements
or with weather stations (e.g., Garcia-Cueto et al., 2007; Runnalls
and Oke, 2000). Furthermore, a linear regression of air tempera-
tures of mobile measurements shows that the cooling rate depends
on the distance to the city centre (an indicator suggested here for
the first time). The corresponding SUHI indicators are the hot island
area (equal to the total area with an LST higher than the mean plus
one standard deviation; Zhang and Wang, 2008) and the magnitude
(equal to the maximum of all temperature pixels minus the mean
of all temperature pixels; Rajasekar and Weng, 2009) because they
both solely rely on temperature patterns and do not account for
additional land cover data when quantifying the SUHI.
The land-cover driven indicator that is based on air tempera-
tures is the difference of the temperature at the urban and rural
weather stations because these pairs of stations are often selected
according to population density to distinguish urban and rural areas
(Gallo et al., 1993; Kukla et al., 1986). The corresponding SUHI indi-
cator identifies rural and urban weather stations using land cover
or the distance to the centre and uses the LSTs of the correspond-
ing pixels (Gallo et al., 1993; Tomlinson et al., 2010 for the rural
area). Furthermore, land cover information is used to compute the
difference of urban and agricultural land cover (Jin et al., 2005),
the difference of urban and water pixels (Chen et al., 2006) and the
micro-urban heat island (equal to the percentage of area (without
water surfaces) with an LST higher than the warmest LST that is
associated with tree canopies; Aniello et al., 1995).
These diverse indicators were developed and used in two mostly
separated research communities (with Gallo et al., 1993 being a rare
exception); these two communities are largely characterised by the
data that were used (either remote sensing data or meteorologi-
cal data). The indicators they use to describe the UHI/SUHI depend
on the type of data that are gathered, e.g., some LST-based indica-
tors require spatially explicit data that cover the whole area under
investigation. However, the indicators that have been developed in
these two communities may potentially affect each other because
the ideas underlying a specific indicator can be transferred. For
instance, in the literature, it was proposed that the UHI magnitude
should be used with LST data, but the UHI can also be quantified
using maximum and mean air temperatures. Consequently, when-
ever possible, we attempted to adapt the different indicators to
both air temperatures and LSTs. Table 1 shows the typology of the
UHI indicators that are either driven by the UHI or by land cover
and are quantified using LSTs or air temperatures.
This approach was realised for the city of Leipzig, Germany. The
focus was on UHI/SUHI indicators that describe the UHI in single
metrics to foster comparisons across cities or studies. Thus, the
approach of using geographically weighted regression techniques
for single cities (e.g., Li et al., 2010) was not pursued further because
it provides a very detailed view on a single city without quantifying
the absolute extent of the SUHI.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Case study
The case study region covers an area of 747 km2 and is situated
in Central Germany (Fig. 1). It encompasses the administrative area
of the city of Leipzig (298 km2 ), which contained approximately
519,000 inhabitants in 2009. Thus, it is one of the major cities
of Germany. The case study region lies in the Eastern part of the
North German Plain. It is flat and lies approximately 118 m above
695
sea level. The landscape around the city is dominated by agriculture
and former opencast lignite mining. Today, most of these mines are
being re-cultivated and converted to lakes, especially in the south
of Leipzig. The Weisse Elster River and contributing streams flow
through the city and are partly accompanied by a Riparian forest
that intersects the region in north–south direction. The climate in
the case study region is continental with an average annual tem-
perature of 9 ◦ C and contains clearly distinguishable seasons; the
average winter (DJF) temperatures were 0.5 ◦ C and the summer
(JJA) temperatures were 17.4 ◦ C for the years from 1961 to 1990.
The mean annual precipitation is approximately 540 mm.
The data set consisted of air temperature measurements and
LST maps. The LSTs were detected with an airborne sensor dur-
ing two flights (Section 2.3). The air temperatures were acquired
from a total of 15 weather stations from three different origins
(Section 2.2.1) and mobile measurements parallel to the evening
flight (Section 2.2.2). Two flights were utilised: (1) shortly after
sunset on 22 September 2010 between 7:30 pm and 9:00 pm (called
“evening” for the remainder of this paper) and (2) before sunrise on
23 September 2010 between 5:00 am and 6:30 am (called “morn-
ing” throughout the paper). All of the times are given in Central
European Summertime (UTC +2 h). During these days, in the case
study region, there was autochthone high-pressure weather with
a clear sky. The winds were very weak (German Weather Service
observations at Leipzig-Schkeuditz weather station: air pressure:
1006 hPa, mean air temperature 2 m above the ground 14.7 ◦ C (min:
8.0 ◦ C, max: 21.4 ◦ C), relative air humidity 78.1%, average wind 2 Bft,
wind gusts 4 Bft, sunshine duration 11.2 h, no precipitation).
2.2. Air temperature data
2.2.1. Stationary measurements
A total of 15 weather stations were used to acquire air temper-
atures (Figs. 1 and 2); two stations (nos. 14 and 15 in Fig. 2) are
operated by the German Weather Service; four stations (nos. 4, 8,
12, and 13 in Fig. 2) by the Saxon State Office for Environment,
Agriculture and Geology; and nine stations were mounted specif-
ically for this study. These nine stations (1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 and
11) were equipped with a temperature and humidity sensor and a
data logger (OPUS10 TIC, Lufft company, Germany, accuracy ±0.3 K
and ±2.5% relative humidity) and were mounted at a 1.5 m height
in a ventilated shelter that protected against solar radiation and
precipitation.
2.2.2. Mobile measurements
The mobile measurements were performed on a route that is
west of the city centre and shows a gradient from dense urban
structures into a large green urban area (Fig. 3). The route was
furthermore designed to include roads with different tree covers
(Fig. 3; starting from the east, the three parallel streets have numer-
ous trees in a wide street, numerous trees in a narrower street and
no trees). The route from the city centre to the park was approxi-
mately 4.5 km one-way and was measured once in each direction,
starting from the city centre at 7:00 pm (a total time of approx-
imately 2 h). Instruments were located in a backpack that was
carried by one person. Sensors were placed outside the backpack
at a height of approximately 0.9 m above the ground. The routes
were recorded by a GPS device (Garmin). The air temperature and
humidity were measured using a Q-Trak 8552 monitor (company
TSI Inc.) with an accuracy of ±0.6 K for air temperature and ±3.0%
for relative humidity.
The air temperatures were corrected for decreasing tempera-
tures due to progressing time so that they would not confound
air temperature differences due to changing surroundings with
temperature differences because of evening cooling. This was
accomplished by estimating a linear regression for the stationary
696 N. Schwarz et al. / Ecological Indicators 18 (2012) 693–704

Fig. 1. The case study region Leipzig. Land cover refers to the urban audit data and is available for the larger part of the region (Section 2.4). The numbers indicate the location
of the weather stations (Fig. 2).

measurements of air temperature at the closest weather station
(no. 3) at the time of the mobile measurement. A cooling of 0.016 K
per minute was found (corrected R2 = 0.95).
2.3. LST data
The LSTs were acquired during the two overhead flights on 22
(7:30–9:00 pm) and 23 (5:00–6:30 am) September 2010 at 2000 m
above the ground. The sensor to detect the LSTs was a Daedalus
AADS 1250, which uses wavelengths from 8 to 14 ␮m. The resulting
LST map has a spatial resolution of 5 m with an extent of 30.25 km
east–west and 24.7 km north–south (Fig. 4). The LSTs were classi-
fied into classes that had a width of 1 ◦ C.
2.4. Land cover data
To characterise the surroundings of the stationary and mobile
measurements and the whole case study region, high-resolution
 N. Schwarz et al. / Ecological Indicators 18 (2012) 693–704 697

Fig. 2. Weather stations used for this study: ID and name, geographical coordinates and elevation. The stations are arranged in a descending order according to the share of
sealed and continuous urban fabric. All of the coordinates are given in the Gauss-Krueger coordinate system, zone 4. Land cover 2006 refers to the urban atlas classes (see
Fig. 1), and the circles represent buffers of 5, 10 and 100 m around the weather stations. Elevation was determined using the GTOPO dataset from the US Geological Survey.

urban land cover data available from the Urban Atlas project of the
European Environment Agency were used (EEA, 2010). The vector
data are based upon data that have a spatial resolution of 2.5 m and
a minimal mapping unit of 0.25 ha for the urban classes. The current
version depicts the year 2006 ±1 year and is available for more than
200 European city regions. Urban Atlas land cover distinguishes
20 classes, of which 17 are urban (see Fig. 1). The accuracy was
quantified as 87.5% for the combined classes for the Leipzig data
set.
onto air temperatures of the mobile route and the corresponding
LSTs (dependent variables).
The diverse UHI/SUHI indicators provide single values for the
UHI or SUHI of the city of Leipzig, respectively. Thus, only one
data point was available for each specific indicator per acquisi-
tion time (morning or evening). Consequently, the comparableness
of the indicators (hypothesis 2) was shown by comparing their
absolute values, and no statistical method was used for comparing
them.

2.5. Statistical methods

The relationship of LST and air temperatures (hypothesis 1) was
measured with Spearman rank correlations, as they also account
for non-linear relationships. Spearman rank correlations were com-
puted for whole case study area as well as separated by land cover
class. Furthermore, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was computed
to quantify the effect of land cover class (independent variable)
3. Results and discussion
The results are first reported and discussed regarding the rela-
tionship of the LST and air temperature (hypothesis 1, Section 3.1).
In Section 3.2, the quantification of the different UHI/SUHI indica-
tors (hypothesis 2) is presented. Finally, we discuss the limitations
of our study (Section 3.3).
698 N. Schwarz et al. / Ecological Indicators 18 (2012) 693–704

Fig. 3. Map of the air temperatures that were measured during the evening flight with underlying urban land cover (see Fig. 1). The data are already corrected for cooling
during the time of acquisition (see Section 2.2.2). The grey area of the inserted map shows the detailed area.
 N. Schwarz et al. / Ecological Indicators 18 (2012) 693–704
Fig. 4. LSTs that were acquired on the evening of 22 September 2010.
3.1. Data integration of air and LST measurements
First, similarities between the air temperatures and LSTs are
tested (Section 3.1.1). Second, the land cover classes are charac-
terised with the air temperatures and LSTs (Section 3.1.2).
3.1.1. Integration of the measurement methods
When comparing the UHI and SUHI indicators, the different
measurement methods and their implications must be considered.
Air temperatures are measured at single points (here, at weather
stations) or at points along a line (here, the mobile route), while LSTs
cover a larger area when they are measured with an airborne sen-
sor. Thus, these different measurement types need to be compared.
Fig. 5 shows the air temperatures that were measured at all of the
weather stations parallel to both flights and a set of LSTs: (1) the LST
on the pixel at which the weather station was located and the mean
LST values for buffers of (2) 5 m, (3) 10 m and (4) 100 m around the
weather station. The results from the evening flight indicate that
the air temperatures were higher than the LSTs for almost every
weather station with the exception of no. 7, which was situated on
a lawn. During the morning flight, almost no differences between
the air temperature and LST were visible. The only exception was
weather station no. 9, where creeping plants covered large parts
of the courtyard in which the weather station was located. Con-
sequently, the morning temperatures of the air and land surfaces
were closely related, and the LST that was measured for the specific
699
pixel of the weather station generally indicated a closer relationship
to the respective air temperature at the weather station.
To quantify the similarity of the air and LST, Spearman rank
correlations were computed using the LST on the pixels of the
temperature measurements’ locations along the mobile route. The
correlations for air temperature and LST were all statistically sig-
nificant (p < 0.01) and depended on the quantification of the LST;
the correlation decreased with an increasing area that was cov-
ered to compute the mean LST (individual pixel: rs = 0.63; buffer of
5 m: rs = 0.62; buffer of 10 m: rs = 0.60; buffer of 100 m: rs = 0.55).
Finally, we also included a moving average LST on a pixel basis by
combining the immediate pixels of the measurement location ±
four locations of the mobile route and found a much higher corre-
lation of rs = 0.85. This finding is easily explained by the area that is
being taken into account compared to the individual pixel; concen-
tric buffers around the pixel include portions of the street canyon,
rooftops and possibly backyards and neighbouring streets, and this
depends on the size of the buffer. Thus, increasing the buffer size
increases the complexity of land cover; consequently, correlations
between the point measurements of the air temperatures and LSTs
decrease. However, the correlation between air temperature and
LST was highest for the moving average LST. The moving average is
the mean of the neighbouring pixels of air temperature measure-
ments within the street canyon. It combines the effect of similar
land cover with advection; for example, temperatures in a street
canyon are also influenced by wind and are likely to be more similar
when exposed to the same wind conditions.
700 N. Schwarz et al. / Ecological Indicators 18 (2012) 693–704

Fig. 5. Relationship between the stationary air temperature measurements and the related LSTs of concentric rings around the stations, which are shown as a range between
the evening (upper end of the bar) and morning (lower end of the bar) temperatures. The air temperatures are given for 8 pm and 6 am, respectively.

Thus, hypothesis 1 (“Air temperatures and LSTs are related”)
has been shown to be valid in this case study. These findings are
consistent with a large body of literature that has documented
relationships between air temperatures and LST values in general
(Mostovoy et al., 2006; Prihodko and Goward, 1997) and for urban
areas (e.g., Cheng et al., 2008). Conversely, Hartz et al. (2006) found
similar characteristics of neighbourhoods in Phoenix, Arizona only
at night, whereas advection in this desert environment likely led to
large differences between the daytime air temperatures and LSTs.
3.1.2. Effects of land cover
The correlations between air temperatures and LSTs for the
mobile route were altered when differentiating for land cover
classes; for pixels with continuous urban fabric, the correlation
between the air temperature and the moving average LST was sim-
ilar (rs = 0.64; p < 0.01; N = 60). The correlation was lower for green
urban areas (rs = 0.54; p < 0.01; N = 28), while the correlation was
higher than average for roads and their associated land (rs = 0.81;
p < 0.01; N = 31).
 N. Schwarz et al. / Ecological Indicators 18 (2012) 693–704 701

Table 2
LSTs that were differentiated by land cover class. Values were computed using the whole case study area.

ID of land cover Name % in case study Evening: LST mean (SD) Morning: LST mean (SD) Diff. mean
type

11100 Continuous urban fabric (S.L. > 80%) 2 15.2 (1) 10.6 (0.9) 4.6**
11210 Discontinuous dense urban fabric (S.L.: 50–80%) 8 14.7 (1.1) 10.1 (0.8) 4.6**
11220 Discontinuous medium density urban fabric (S.L.: 30–50%) 2 14.3 (1) 9.9 (0.9) 4.4**
11230 Discontinuous low density urban fabric (S.L.: 10–30%) <1 14.2 (1.1) 9.9 (0.9) 4.4**
11240 Discontinuous Very low density urban fabric (S.L. < 10%) <1 14.4 (1) 10.2 (0.6) 4.2**
11300 Isolated structures <1 14 (1) 9.7 (1) 4.3**
12100 Industrial, commercial, public, military and private units 8 14.7 (1.3) 10 (1.1) 4.7**
12210 Fast Transit roads and associated land 1 15 (1.1) 10.3 (0.7) 4.7**
12220 Other roads and associated land 3 15 (1.1) 10.3 (0.9) 4.7**
12230 Railways and associated land 1 15 (1) 9.9 (0.8) 5.1**
12400 Airports 1 14.3 (1.3) 10.7 (0.5) 3.6**
13100 Mineral extraction and dump sites 3 14.5 (1.2) 10.9 (2.2) 3.6**
13300 Construction sites 1 14.5 (1.3) 10.3 (0.9) 4.2**
13400 Land without current use <1 14.4 (1.2) 9.9 (1.1) 4.5**
14100 Green urban areas 4 14.9 (1.1) 10.5 (1.1) 4.4**
14200 Sports and leisure facilities 4 14 (1) 9.7 (1) 4.4**
20000 Agricultural, semi-natural and wetland areas 54 13.6 (0.6) 9.2 (1) 4.3**
30000 Forest 5 15.2 (0.9) 10.6 (0.9) 4.6**
50000 Water 3 16 (1) 14.6 (1.8) 1.4**

Notes: Code no. 12300 (Port Areas) does not exist in the case study area.
**
Difference between the morning and evening LSTs differs significantly from 0 (p < 0.001). To compute these tests, 200 random points were distributed per land cover
class to reduce the effects of spatial correlation in a pixel-by-pixel comparison.

The land-cover classes clearly showed different temperatures
(Fig. 6). The corrected air temperatures for 8 pm were always higher
than the LSTs. However, both temperatures showed the same pat-
tern of relatively cooler or warmer areas throughout the mobile
traverse. Even small green areas (e.g., at approximately 2.500 and
6.500 m) showed strongly decreasing temperatures. Furthermore,
the specific composition of the green areas was relevant; the return
of the mobile measurement (after approximately 4.800 m) began
after crossing a meadow and walking under trees at the edge of
a wooded area. Thus, the land cover class “green urban areas”
also showed complex temperature patterns. Finally, the descriptive
results of the LSTs for the whole case study area are summarised
in Table 2. The LST values for the land cover classes are similar to
those that have been published in the literature (e.g., Chen et al.,
2006; Gluch et al., 2006; Kottmeier et al., 2007; Weng et al., 2007).
An analysis of variance (ANOVA) for air temperatures of the
mobile route and the corresponding LSTs was performed to test
the influence of land cover classes as an independent factor on
temperature. The land cover classes showed statistically significant
(p < 0.01) influences for both temperatures. The post hoc tests indi-
cated the same patterns for air temperatures and LSTs (Fig. 7). In
terms of the temperatures, discontinuous urban fabric and green
urban areas both differed significantly from each other and from
all of the other land cover classes.

Fig. 6. Gradient of air temperatures and LSTs for mobile measurements in the
evening. Note: the land classes that were covered with the mobile measurements
varied slightly before and after the return because even small changes (e.g., using
the opposite pavement) may result in another pixel that was covered due to the fine Fig. 7. Significant differences in the means of the corrected air temperatures (lower
resolution (2.5 m) of the land-cover data set. The moving average of the LST consists left) and LSTs (upper right) by land cover class as measured by the mobile measure-
of the individual pixel ± 4 pixels. ments. Grey cells indicate significant differences (p < 0.001).
702 N. Schwarz et al. / Ecological Indicators 18 (2012) 693–704
Fig. 8. Values for the UHI/SUHI in Leipzig according to the different indicators, data and times of the day.
3.2. Comparison of the UHI/SUHI indicators
The results for the individual indicators (Section 3.2.1) are fol-
lowed by elaborations on the choice of weather stations or pixels
(Section 3.2.2). Finally, we discuss the robustness of the indicators
(Section 3.2.3).
3.2.1. Individual indicators
The different UHI and SUHI indicators showed very different
absolute values for the UHI extent in the case study (Fig. 8). These
values were clearly dependent on the indicator itself, the data, and
the time of day.
• The indicator magnitude showed a higher SUHI in the morning
than in the evening, while the diurnal trend was opposite for the
UHI that was quantified with air temperatures.
• The indicator range delivered the highest values of all of the indi-
cators that quantify the SUHI/UHI in K. For LST, the range was
higher in the evening than in the morning, while the relationship
was reversed for the air temperatures.
• Using the mobile measurements, the linear regression for the
distance to the central station that determined the air tem-
perature was statistically significant (corrected R2 = 46%), and
the estimated cooling effect was −2 K/km. For the LSTs, the
linear regression of the distance to the central station that
influenced the evening LST was also statistically significant (cor-
rected R2 = 88%). However, the estimated cooling effect was
only −0.09 K/km. This difference is very likely an effect of the
choice of the mobile route; the route started in the city cen-
tre, and the turning point was in a green urban area. Therefore,
the temperature decrease was overestimated for the mobile
measurement.
• The hot island area according to the LSTs was larger in the evening
(224 km2 ) than in the morning (84 km2 ).
• The difference between the urban and rural temperatures accord-
ing to the density of the built-up area depicted a congruent
diurnal pattern for air and LST; the difference for the morning
UHI and SUHI was smaller.
• The difference between the urban and rural temperatures accord-
ing to the distance to the city centre was stable (2.9–3.1 K) with
the exception of the morning SUHI (1 K).
• The difference between the urban and agriculture temperatures
showed a small range across the measurements and points in
time (1–1.5 K) with the exception of the evening air temperature
measurements (0.2 K).
• The difference between the urban and water temperatures
according to the LSTs showed a cooling effect of −1 K and −4 K
for the evening and morning, respectively.
• The micro-urban heat island was larger for the evening than for
the morning.
Consequently, the absolute values of these diverse indicators
cannot easily be compared; and hypothesis 2 (“Indicators to quan-
tify the UHI/SUHI deliver comparable results”) needs to be rejected.
However, a clear trend, which reveals increased temperatures in
the city, was visible; this was shown by the diverse temperature
differences and the linear regression. The only exception was the
difference between the urban and water temperatures, which indi-
cated the warmer surface temperatures of water surfaces than in
urban areas. This is the result of the LST measurement in autumn
because the water accumulated heat during the summer.
 N. Schwarz et al. / Ecological Indicators 18 (2012) 693–704
Fig. 9. UHI for air temperatures at the 15 weather stations in this sample. The num-
bers refer to the IDs of the weather stations (see Fig. 2). The larger the points, the
larger the distance of this weather station to the central station (station no. 8). Dis-
tances between stations along the x-axis indicate the respective UHI in the evening,
while distances along the y-axis indicate the respective UHI in the morning.
3.2.2. Choice of weather stations or pixels
Some of the indicators that were based on land cover are directly
influenced by the choice of pairs of weather stations or pixels. In
a lot of the studies, only very few weather stations are available
for a single city; therefore, the question of choosing a meaning-
ful combination is often not raised. In the present study, we used
a total of 15 weather stations. Fig. 9 shows that the UHI as the
temperature difference between a pair of weather stations varied
considerably. While the weather stations with very high tempera-
tures were close to the city centre, other weather stations that are
also close to the city centre delivered temperatures that were com-
parable to more remote sites. The continuous urban fabric around
the weather stations showed ambiguous influences.
This finding clearly questions the use of only two weather sta-
tions for any UHI study. The specific location of a weather station is
seldom varied in the literature, although the problem of urban and
rural weather stations has already been discussed by Lowry (1977).
Thus, Runnalls and Oke noted that “The greatest potential for errors
lies in the choice of the rural site” (Runnalls and Oke, 2000, p. 285).
Our results showed that the choice of the urban site should also be
critically discussed.
3.2.3. Robustness of indicators
The UHI/SUHI indicators clearly showed a variety of absolute
values for the UHI in the case study. Approximately half of the SUHI
indicators reported a larger SUHI in the evening than in the morn-
ing, while the other half detected a larger SUHI in the morning. The
UHI indicators consistently reported a larger UHI in the evening.
However, the magnitude of the UHI that was measured with air
temperatures was also very different for the different indicators.
Although all of the indicators should answer the same question
about the UHI, they clearly provide very different answers. Our find-
ings suggest that the absolute values that are derived from different
indicators should not be used for comparisons across cities because
they are unable to provide comparable results even in the same case
703
study. This finding is consistent with results from previous studies
on the comparisons of SUHI indicators across cities (Schwarz et al.,
2011) or across time (Streutker, 2002).
The indicators of the difference between urban and rural (den-
sity and distance) are worthy of future study because they offer
rather stable values for both measurement types and for the
evening and morning measurements. This finding is related to the
study by Gallo et al. (1993), who analysed the relationship of tem-
perature differences of (1) minimum air temperatures of urban and
rural weather stations and (2) the respective daytime LSTs on the
corresponding pixels for 37 cities. They found stronger relation-
ships for the urban and rural weather stations for the stations with
an elevation difference of less than 500 m; this assumption was met
in the present study. However, the results of these indicators clearly
depend on the pairs of weather stations that are selected, which
was shown in Section 3.2.2. Thus, future studies should report sev-
eral UHI/SUHI indicators in parallel to clarify the range of possible
values of the UHI in their case study.
3.3. Limitations of our study
Some study limitations should be mentioned. First, the focus of
this study was on one single evening and the following morning
to cover the times of the overhead flight. A time series of over-
head flights combined with air temperature measurements would
be even more helpful to unravel the relationship between LSTs and
air temperature, the different indicators for the diurnal cycle and
across seasons and under different weather conditions. Second, our
study design included a mobile route with a turn-around point in
a green urban area. This clearly increased the UHI effect that was
found in the air temperature measurements. Designing a mobile
route along a traverse through the city within the built-up area
could be an alternative that would facilitate the estimation of the
effect of distance alone and would not confound the distance-effect
with land cover-effects. Finally, we were not able to confirm the
data quality of the LST data because we had no access to the raw
data that were acquired during the flights. However, we did not
encounter obvious flaws in the processed LST values.
4. Summary and conclusions
This study aimed at comparing LST and air temperature data
and their usage for different indicators of the UHI/SUHI. Such
a comparison could deliver insights into the comparableness of
different UHI/SUHI indicators and the related data sets that are fre-
quently used in urban climate studies. The present methodological
approach was tested in the case study of Leipzig, Germany. Two
overhead flights of the city delivered LSTs. The flight campaign
was accompanied by field measurements of air temperatures at
15 weather stations and a traverse in the city. These two types of
data sets were used to quantify indicators for the (surface) UHI
in parallel. We used existing indicators from the literature and
applied indicators that were developed for either land surface or
air temperatures to the opposite data set, if possible. In doing so,
we integrated the two mostly distinct research methods on the
UHI. Our results showed the following. (1) The relationship of the
air and LSTs was high. In detail, the pixel-by-pixel correlation of
the measured air temperatures and the LSTs was higher than when
correlating air temperature point values with concentric buffers of
LSTs. However, the highest correlation was found for the air tem-
perature point measurements and the LSTs that were averaged over
the neighbouring measurement points of the traverse. (2) The land
cover types showed statistical differences for both the land surface
and the air temperatures. (3) The absolute values for the UHI heavily
depended on the indicator that was used, the data and the time of
704 N. Schwarz et al. / Ecological Indicators 18 (2012) 693–704
the day. No dominant absolute value was identified for the extent of
the UHI in Leipzig. (4) The remote sensing data (LST data) will more
reliably identify heat islands in areas that have a dense urban fabric
that includes streets than in areas where the population density is
lower.
The parallel quantification of a variety of indicators for the UHI
using the same case study and data sets guaranteed that the exper-
imental and environmental conditions were equal. However, the
range of the absolute UHI values varied considerably. This finding
questions the usage of single values for the UHI for a whole city
because the explanatory power of such an indicator (i.e., “For city
X, we quantified the urban heat island as 3.7 K.”) is rather limited.
However, when comparing different cities, it is necessary to use
such single values to quantify influences (i.e., the influence of pop-
ulation size or density, the share of green areas or NDVI and the
elevation or latitude) onto the extent of the UHI. Stewart (2011)
argued that UHI studies that use meteorological data are often
not comparable because they seldom provide crucial information,
such as acquisition times or instrumentation. Furthermore, envi-
ronmental (such as weather) and experimental conditions should
be considered. We expand this argument by indicating our findings
with regard to the different indicators. If one intends to compare
several UHI studies, the indicators must be quantified in exactly
the same way. Comparing different cities by means of different
indicators for the UHI will likely lead to questionable results. As a
consequence, such studies should state the methods for data acqui-
sition and account for environmental and experimental conditions,
which Stewart (2011) has already described; they should also make
transparent the exact quantification of the UHI. If possible, several
indicators for the UHI should be presented in parallel.
Acknowledgements
We acknowledge the thermal maps, which were acquired
and processed by the engineering consultants Steinicke and
Streifeneder, Freiburg (Germany). We thank Michael Naumann and
the Department of Environment, Section Urban Ecology, of the city
administration of Leipzig for approving the scientific usage of this
data set. We thank the Saxon State Office for Environment, Agricul-
ture and Geology and the German Weather Service for providing
their meteorological data and the US Geological Survey for pro-
viding the elevation data. The research was supported by TERENO
(Terrestrial Environmental Observatories). Furthermore, we thank
Andreas Foth, Sebastian Fritsche, Michael Krüger, Sebastian Mayer,
Kerstin Stark and Jens Weinert for acquiring the field data. Finally,
we thank all the families who allowed us to mount weather stations
on their properties and two anonymous referees for very helpful
comments on an earlier version of this manuscript.
References
Aniello, C., Morgan, K., Busbey, A., Newland, L., 1995. Mapping micro-urban heat
islands using Landsat TM and A GIS. Comput. Geosci. 21, 965–969.
Arnfield, A.J., 2003. Two decades of urban climate research: a review of turbulence,
exchanges of energy and water, and the urban heat island. Int. J. Climatol. 23,
1–26.
Chen, X.L., Zhao, H.M., Li, P.X., Yin, Z.Y., 2006. Remote sensing image-based analysis of
the relationship between urban heat island and land use/cover changes. Remote
Sens. Environ. 104, 133–146.
Cheng, K.S., Su, Y.F., Kuo, F.T., Hung, W.C., Chiang, J.L., 2008. Assessing the effect of
landcover changes on air temperature using remote sensing images – a pilot
study in northern Taiwan. Landscape Urban Plan. 86, 85–96.
EEA, 2010. GMES Urban Atlas Data., http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-
maps/data/urban-atlas.
Gallo, K.P., McNab, A.L., Karl, T.R., Brown, J.F., Hood, J.J., Tarpley, J.D., 1993. The use
of NOAA AVHRR data for assessment of the urban heat-island effect. JApMe 32,
899–908.
Garcia-Cueto, O.R., Jauregui-Ostos, E., Toudert, D., Tejeda-Martinez, A., 2007. Detec-
tion of the urban heat island in Mexicali, B. C., Mexico and its relationship with
land use. Atmosfera 20, 111–131.
Gluch, R., Quattrochi, D.A., Luvall, J.C., 2006. A multi-scale approach to urban thermal
analysis. Remote Sens. Environ. 104, 123–132.
Harlan, S.L., Brazel, A.J., Prashad, L., Stefanov, W.L., Larsen, L., 2006. Neighborhood
microclimates and vulnerability to heat stress. Soc. Sci. Med. 63, 2847–2863.
Hartz, D.A., Prashad, L., Hedquist, B.C., Golden, J., Brazel, A.J., 2006. Linking satel-
lite images and hand-held infrared thermography to observed neighborhood
climate conditions. Remote Sens. Environ. 104, 190–200.
Jin, M.L., Dickinson, R.E., Zhang, D.L., 2005. The footprint of urban areas on global
climate as characterized by MODIS. J. Clim. 18, 1551–1565.
Knapp, S., Kuhn, I., Schweiger, O., Klotz, S., 2008. Challenging urban species diversity:
contrasting phylogenetic patterns across plant functional groups in Germany.
Ecol. Lett. 11, 1054–1064.
Kottmeier, C., Biegert, C., Corsmeier, U., 2007. Effects of urban land use on surface
temperature in Berlin: case study. J. Urban Plan. Dev. ASCE 133, 128–137.
Kukla, G., Gavin, J., Karl, T.R., 1986. Urban warming. JCAM 25, 1265–1270.
Lafortezza, R., Carrus, G., Sanesi, G., Davies, C., 2009. Benefits and well-being per-
ceived by people visiting green spaces in periods of heat stress. Urban Forest.
Urban Green 8, 97–108.
Li, S.C., Zhao, Z.Q., Xie, M.M., Wang, Y.L., 2010. Investigating spatial non-stationary
and scale-dependent relationships between urban surface temperature and
environmental factors using geographically weighted regression. Environ.
Model. Software 25, 1789–1800.
Lindberg, F., 2007. Modelling the urban climate using a local governmental geo-
database. Meteorol. Appl. 14, 263–273.
Lowry, W.P., 1977. Empirical estimation of urban effects on climate – problem anal-
ysis. JApMe 16, 129–135.
Luo, Z.K., Sun, O.J., Ge, Q.S., Xu, W.T., Zheng, J.Y., 2007. Phenological responses of
plants to climate change in an urban environment. Ecol. Res. 22, 507–514.
Mostovoy, G.V., King, R.L., Reddy, K.R., Kakani, V.G., Filippova, M.G., 2006. Sta-
tistical estimation of daily maximum and minimum air temperatures from
MODIS LST data over the state of Mississippi. GISci. Remote Sens. 43,
78–110.
Oke, T.R., 1982. The energetic basis of the urban heat-island. QJRMS 108, 1–24.
Prihodko, L., Goward, S.N., 1997. Estimation of air temperature from remotely sensed
surface observations. Remote Sens. Environ. 60, 335–346.
Rajasekar, U., Weng, Q.H., 2009. Urban heat island monitoring and analysis using
a non-parametric model: a case study of Indianapolis. ISPRS J. Photogramm.
Remote Sens. 64, 86–96.
Roetzer, T., Wittenzeller, M., Haeckel, H., Nekovar, J., 2000. Phenology in central
Europe – differences and trends of spring phenophases in urban and rural areas.
IJBm 44, 60–66.
Runnalls, K.E., Oke, T.R., 2000. Dynamics and controls of the near-surface heat island
of Vancouver, British Columbia. PhGeo 21, 283–304.
Schwarz, N., Lautenbach, S., Seppelt, R., 2011. Exploring indicators for quantifying
surface urban heat islands of European cities with MODIS land surface temper-
atures. Remote Sens. Environ. 115, 3175–3186.
Shustack, D.P., Rodewald, A.D., Waite, T.A., 2009. Springtime in the city: exotic shrubs
promote earlier greenup in urban forests. Biol. Invasions 11, 1357–1371.
Stafoggia, M., Schwartz, J., Forastiere, F., Perucci, C.A., The SISTI Group, 2008. Does
temperature modify the association between air pollution and mortality? A
multicity case-crossover analysis in Italy. Am. J. Epidemiol. 167, 1476–1485.
Stewart, I.D., Oke, T., 2009. A new classification system for urban climate sites. Bull.
Am. Meteorol. Soc. 90, 922–923.
Stewart, I.D., 2011. A systematic review and scientific critique of methodology in
modern urban heat island literature. IJCli 31, 200–217.
Streutker, D.R., 2002. A remote sensing study of the urban heat island of Houston,
Texas. Int. J. Remote Sens. 23, 2595–2608.
Tomlinson, C.J., Chapman, L., Thornes, J.E., Baker, C.J., 2010. Derivation of Birming-
ham’s summer surface urban heat island from MODIS satellite images. IJCli,
doi:10.1002/joc.2261(online).
United States Geological Survey. GTOPO 30.
http://eros.usgs.gov/#/Find Data/Products and Data Available/gtopo30 info.
Voogt, J.A., Oke, T.R., 2003. Thermal remote sensing of urban climates. Remote Sens.
Environ. 86, 370–384.
Weng, Q., Liu, H., Lu, D., 2007. Assessing the effects of land use and land cover patterns
on thermal conditions using landscape metrics in city of Indianapolis, United
States. Urban Ecosyst. 10, 203–219.
Zhang, J.Q., Wang, Y.P., 2008. Study of the relationships between the spatial extent
of surface urban heat islands and urban characteristic factors based on Landsat
ETM plus data. Sensors 8, 7453–7468.